MR. FRANCE B. MARTINS AND ANR. versus MRS. MAFAIDA MARIA TERESA RODRIGUES

Citation: [1999] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 685 · Decided: 24-08-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. SAGHIR AHMAD · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

-
MR. FRANCE B. MARTINS AND ANR. 
v. 
MRS. MAF AIDA MARIA TERESA RODRIGUES 
AUGUST 24, 1999 
[S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND R.P. SETHI, JJ.] 
Consumer Protection Act, 1986-Section I I-Complaint under-
Applicability of provisions of Limitation Act, Limitation Act, 1963-Artic/e 
54. 
The appellants were promoters/developers of an apartment. The 
respondent purchased a flat from appellant in the name of her minor daughter 
A 
B 
c 
for a total consideration of Rs. 2,10,000. The possession of the flat was 
delivered to the respondent on payment of the entire consideration money in 
September, 1985. The appellants, however, failed to execute any sale deed in 
favour of the respondent By a notice dated 30.8.1991, the appellants required D 
the respondent to pay Rs. 20,000 within 15 days failing which the appellants 
claimed that they would charge interest on the balance sum. 
Being aggrieved by the non-execution of the sale deed, the respondent 
filed a complaint under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act on 
19.6.1992. The complaint was dismissed by the District Forum on the ground E 
of limitation. 
The respondent filed an appeal which was allowed by the State 
Commission and the matter was remitted back to the District Forum 
permitting the respondent to amend her complaint. 
The District Forum again dismissed the complaint on the ground of 
limitation. The appeal filed by the respondent against the order of the District 
Forum was allowed by the State Commission and the appellants were directed 
F 
for specific performance of the agreement between the appellants and the 
respondent. The revision filed by the appellants before the National G 
Commission was dismissed. Hence the appellants filed the present appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1.1. No period of limitation had been prescribed in the 
Consumer Protection Act before insertion of Section 24A vide amendment 
685 
H 
686 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] SUPP. l S.C.R. 
A made w.e.f. 18th June, I 993. The provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 have 
not been specifically made applicable to the proceedings under the Consumer 
Protection Act. [687-G; 688-A) 
1.2. When the Legislature, in its wisdom, thought it appropriate not to 
prescribe the period of limitation for proceedings under the Consumer 
B 
Protection Act, the courts cannot apply the provisions by implication. The 
addition of Section 24A in the Consumer Protection Act reflects the mind 
of the Legislature that they had initially not intended to prescribe any period 
of limitation for filing the complaints under the Consumer Protection Act. 
c 
1688-C; G) 
New India Assurance Co. ltd. v. Shri B.N. Sainani, JT (1997) 6 SC 
211, distinguished. 
2.1. Even assuming (without holding) that the provisions of the 
Limitation Act were applicable, the claim preferred by the respondent-
D complainant was not barred by time. 1689-F) 
2.2. At no point of time the appellants denied their liability to execute 
the sale deed in favour of the respondent No period for specific performance 
of Agreement had been prescribed by the parties. The respondent-complainant 
could, at worst, assume on 30th August, 1991 (when notice was sent to the 
E 
respondent by the appellant) that the appellants were not interested in the 
specific performance of the contract between the parties. Even if the period 
is computed from that date, the complaint was filed well within time in terms 
of Article 54 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act. 1689-G; 690-CI 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7593 of 
F 
1995. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.2.95 of the National Consumer 
Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in R.P.No. 441 of 1994. 
K.B. Sinha, Bhawanishankar V. Gadnis and H.A. Raichura for the 
G Appellants. 
Ajit Pudussery for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of Court was delivered by · 
SETHI, J. The appellants, promoters/developers of Perpetual Apartments, 
H agreed to sell a flat in the name of minor daughter of the respondent. According 
. .,,. 
FRANCE B. MARTINS v. MAFAIDA MARIA TERESA RODRIGUES [SETHI, J.] 687 
to the Agreement between the parties, the price of the flat being Rs. 2, l 0,000 A 
was to be paid on or before September, 1985. The possession of the flat is 
stated to have been delivered to the respondent in September, 1985 on 
payment of the whole of the agreed amount. Despite various requests made, 
the appellant did not execute the sale deed on false pretexts. In the absence 
of the sale d
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.